Okay, perhaps a little melodramatic there, but after I’d got up at 2 am on Saturday to set up polling booths and then spent the whole day handing out how to vote cards before scrutineering, I can probably get away with being a little deflates about the whole election thing.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the whole business – it was interesting to see how it all worked – t he blood and guts of Australian democracy so to speak, but it was also a little disheartening in the end.

Let me explain: the local labor member is in danger of losing his seat to the libs candidate. Fair enough? Well, maybe, but I’ve got a few problems with that. Firstly, the libs candidate ran a campaign where she said nothing. Not to the people or the press. Except for one late interview on 2GB, she was effectively gagged and hidden away from sight. No community forums. No online presence. No town hall meetings. In fact, the only way we knew she existed at all was because every now and then we’d get glossy brochures through the mail, promising real action. That’s it. I bet every other bloody lib candidate had the same glossy brochures, with just the electorates name changed.

But it got worse – when it came to election day, lo and behold, hundreds of liberals descend upon Bradbury from Manly! They didn’t know the local area (kind of funny watching them try to give directions), they didn’t know Fiona Scott, and they were getting paid by the liberal party for the day, according to some.

And they might still win the seat of Lindsay. Doesn’t seem right, really, does it?

Anyway, with a bit of perspective, you can see where it all went wrong for labor; a lot of people might argue that it started when Keven Rudd was unceremoniously shown the door. That’s not the way that I see it: I think that it happened before that, when Rudd backed down over the ETS and the Mining Tax. I’m not sure what else he could have done – the hate campaign being run by News Ltd and Fairfax pretty much ensured that public opinion was turning against him anyway, but I can’t get past the feeling that he lost his nerve a little bit. The moment that the ETS – and climate change – was off the agenda, you could almost see the left wing of the labor party start to decamp to the greens. The Mining Tax only accelerated this departure.

And that’s the crucial thing that so many of our political commentators missed at the first analysis; while this election certainly wasn’t a win for Labor, it wasn’t much of a win for the LNPs either. Instead, it was a major win for the greens – with power in the Senate and now their first lower house representative, too. It seems like Australia got the parliament it deserved!

So where to now for the Labor Party?

A friend of mine was interviewed by the Sun Herald newspaper the other day. The journalist was Jessica Wright, and there was a photographer there, as well. The reason that he and his family were interviewed was because of the Lindsay electorate. David Bradbury, the local member, is from the ALP and holds Lindsay by about 6%. However, it’s seen very much as vital seat to win in this federal election, linked as it is to the idea of Western Sydney as a heartland of racism and the refugee issue – both of which I have some serious concerns regarding.

Anyway, it was interesting to see the process the interview went through. My friend, Jonathon, was actually reasonably positive about a lot of the Rudd government’s work. He was also positive about David Bradbury’s work in the local community. However, the reporter seemed only to want to focus on areas of negativity. So a statement like, ‘I’m supportive of the trade schools but worried about the waste of money involved in BER’ became ‘I’m worried about the waste of money involved in the BER’.

To me, at least, it seemed like there was a lot that was taken out of context in the interview, which basically skewed the whole point of view. Free and impartial press? Not in this lifetime.

Here’s the whole article:

So we go to the polls in 5 short weeks. I’m not the oldest follower of politics out there, but I’ve always had an interest in politics, and that’s something that has only grown as I’ve got older, to the point that I’m reasonably active these days. The reason I mention this is because this election suddenly seems -to me, at least – to be very important. I don’t think I’m the only one that feels this way; I don’t recall the intense level of media speculation about the calling of the election in previous years. It seems – and I might be a little over the top here – that this is a really important point for Australia – almost a turning point between two very different ideologies.

That might sound strange, I know. A lot of people I talk to are really struggling to choose between JG and Tony Abbott, and a lot of others are saying they’ll vote informally, or for the greens or something similar. That kind of talk isn’t particularly unusual – however, usually this is because there seems to be little difference between the two main candidates. Certainly in the Howard/ Keating years, it often seemed to be a choice between two quite similar approaches, especially to economic policy. I know there were differences, but I don’t think people were actually capable of seeing those differences in any real sense.

This time, though, it’s different. There are major points of departure between the Labor party and the Liberals, although one could argue that since JG came to power, the differences have narrowed. Still, there are major differences in most of the policy areas – education (for example, the trade training centres), health (public vs private health care), industrial relations (work choices vs not) – and that makes this election vitally important.

I’m firmly committed to the labor movement – and always have been – but even I can admit that the government has made a lot of mistakes over the past 3 years. The education revolution money, the mining tax, the about-face on climate change have all contributed to a feeling that the labour government is struggling; but- and I reckon it’s a big but – how much of that is just the media apportioning blame? What about all the other things that the labour government has done – and sucessfully, too? Things like reconciliation with indigenous Australians, the national curriculum, increased health care funding, tax reform, industrial relations changes and – most of all – successfully navigating us through the GFC.

So, I guess I’m saying that it’s going to be a hectic 5 weeks or so. There’s going to be a lot of talking about Gillard and Abbott. I’m calling on everybody to just take a moment and remind themselves that a federal election is not a popularity contest. Instead, it’s an opportunity for us to enact our democratic rights by choosing the government that we think will do the best for Australia-  not the best for our back pocket. Although there’s a right in action here, there’s also a responsibility for us to consider the future, and how to best safeguard Australia for successive generations.

I’ve been out and about (closely aided by Andrew and Liz) putting up posters of David Bradbury around the Lindsey electorate. Along the way I’ve met lots of people – some of them who’ve been clear supporters of Bradbury and others who’ve not.

I think something that I’ve learnt during this process is the idea of reductionism – so many people seem to want to reduce the election to a Labor/ Liberal kind of dichotomy. You’re either one or the other – and there can be no middle ground. It’s almost a ‘you’re with us or against us kind of mentality.’

To be honest, I was a little bid disappointed with that approach because, allied to that blinkered view is a genuine unwillingness amonst most people to even enter into any kind of reasoned debate. I’m a labor member – simply because I think the labor party offers the most to all Australians, and not just to the privileged classes. I think that the Rudd government did some significant work in this regard, but also struggled in certain aspects that were poorly handled. Personally, I don’t see any hope for any improvement from the current Federal Liberal mob.

Anyway, here’s some photos from the work I’ve been doing:

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with Wayne Swan, the Treasure and Deputy PM while he attended the local Federal Member’s (David Bradbury – Lindsay) opening of his new office. Mr Swan spoke at length about his views on politics to the assembled group and the importance of communities. He and David then highlighted the way that Labor had worked to support communities, and in particular, save local jobs for people. He specifically spoke about Labor’s success in dealing with the global financial crisis, which, I believe, is something that Labor should be rightly proud of. I was glad that I was with  David Currie, who understands financial trends and factors far better than I do – we talked later about the fact that part of the reason that Australia was able to navigate the GFC so well was because of the surplus that the Howard government left in place. Of course, another part of the reason was because Australian banks are so much more heavily regulated than their US or European counterparts, which in itself is, I believe, a legacy of the Hawke government, so I don’t think that Swan can claim all the credit for the successful navigation of the GFC. However, I think it is partly fair to say that the government used the resources that it had at its disposable to ensure that Australia managed to survive the GFC, with low unemployment.

Anyway, I also had the chance to speak privately with Mr Swan for a little while. I talked to him about the Trade Training Centre, and he pointed out that these ideas are originally from Queensland, and we agreed that there is a lot of important educational thought coming from Queensland at the moment, in particular the productive pedagogies stuff, as well. Anyway, I was fairly impressed at his depth of knowledge regarding education, considering I thought his main focus was economic policy.

Anyway, I got some photos on my phone. See below! And, yes, Wayne Swan is pretty short, so I look like the BFG next to him and David!

I had the opportunity to have a chat with David Bradbury, the Federal MP for Lindsey, recently. Before I start the main part of this article, let me make it clear that I am a member of the Labor Party, and have been for a number of years, so I guess you can read everything that I write through that kind of lens.

Anyway, David and I were talking about the tumultuous events of the last week as Ms Gillard become the Prime Minister. I won’t really go into too much detail about what was said, because a lot of it was behind closed doors and I really don’t think the internet is the best place for that kind of discussion.

However, what I will talk about was how impressed I was with David Bradbury. I know that his profile – nationally – isn’t exactly sky-high. He doesn’t have a ministry or anything like that, and you have to hunt through the news to find any mention of him outside of Lindsey, but he does have a reasonably strong local profile. Anyway, what really impressed me was the calm, measured approach that he took to dealing with these particular issues. As he discussed the decisions he had made, he carefully explained to me the thoughts behind each decision and why he felt that he had to decide in the way that he did. I got a real sense of calm, clear, rational decision-making which I think is a skill that is often lacking in politicians these days.

Another thing that impressed me was how seriously he took his role as the peoples’ representative to the Parliament. Every decision that he made was based on what his constituents wanted – or what he thought that they wanted. He was completely focused on what the people of Penrith and other areas were saying about the major issues – and through his use of mobile offices and things he was trying to get in touch with those people; I got he impression he generally wanted to listen to people’s opinions about ETS and RSPT and Boat People and Rudd-Gillard. And after he listened, he wanted to talk about it too.

The final thing that I found impressive was the moral standing of David Bradbury. Populist is a bit of a dirty word in politics, despite, as far as I can see, populism being the main (and often only) basis for policy decisions. If it gets us votes, we’ll do it seems to be the dictum for most politicians. David, on the other hand, seemed to be arguing for the need to educate the public about the reasons behind certain decisions, and therefore allow them to make more informed decisions.

It’s funny; when I was too young to know much about it, I went with a friend to a few Young Liberal meetings. I enjoyed the ideas behind it – the theatre of voting and seconding motions – more than I had any real passion for the politics; to be honest, I wouldn’t have been able to explain to you any of the facets of the ideological basis for Liberals. Or for Labor, for that matter.

Anyway, after my time in England, where I was more heavily involved in the Trade Union Movement, coupled with revulsion for the Howard government’s approach to indigenous Australians and refugees, I joined the Labor Party on my return. I thought it was about time I got serious about what I believed in, and if I believed in community involvement, then, doggone it, I needed to be involved in the community.

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the process so far; it’s certainly been eventful. I’ve met the local federal Member for Lindsay (David Bradbury) and saw the whole Karyn Paluzzano affair as well, which was very sad, especially as I had respect for both Karyn and her husband, Robert.

Enough back story. On to the central question. Anyway, I was having dinner with Mrs Heggart and a very good friend of hers (who is now a very good friend of mine). Somehow, we got talking about politics which is always a minefield, even at the best of times. We were talking about the upcoming federal election, and I suggested that it was an election that would be won or lost on economic principles. I suggested that I wouldn’t vote for Tony Abbott, simply because

Our friend – let’s call her Miss Y, for the sake of this blog – announced that she completely disagreed with this. She argued that Australia is always better off under a Liberal government than a labour government, and suggested that she’d be voting for Abbott in the next election. I said, ‘Whoah, hold up. Better off for who?’ She said, ‘Better of for me.’

And that’s the crux of the matter: I can’t argue with Miss Y’s assertion. She would be better off under Abbott. She’s a wealthy white woman, highly educated, with a job at an international corporation that pays her very well to sell things and manage products. It’s a good job, and she’s very good at it.

But this is where it gets interesting; I’m not a labor voter because I think that I will be better off under a labor government. I don’t lean towards the left because it will earn me more money. I situate myself there simply because I think that this kind of government (and I have grave reservations over some of the current administration’s policies) is the best for all people – not just me.

However, are people on the right only thinking of themselves? I know this is topic that might raise a few hackles, but I think it’s interesting. Liberal Conservative governments generally stand for the reduction of big government, cutting of taxes, especially those of big business to increase the economy. It stands for conservative values as well.

Taking this into account, let’s look at a topical issue through this lens: boat people. As a left-leaning member of Australia, I argue that we should encourage more boat people to enter into Australia, from the simple reason that, morally, it’s the right thing to do. Of course we need security checks and so on, but generally, the vast majority of these people are genuine refugees and we, as signatories to the UN declaration on refugees, should do everything possible to accept and assimilate these people. It’s not like we haven’t done so before in Australia. From this point of view, I’m arguing what is essentially a selfless argument – I don’t benefit from this in any way. It’s even possible that I am worse off, because the money spent on supporting these refugees is money that doesn’t go to be spent on Australians.

On the other hand, through a conservative approach, we should ban boat people, because we have to spend money on them, and that money comes from taxes, and if we cut taxes we could have higher investment, which means everybody in Australia would be better off – or at least the people that own the companies that we buy from would be.

I know I’ve simplified the issue, but essentially, I think the question does come down to this: Are liberal conservatives just selfish? If they act in a way that suits their best interests – at the cost of others’ welfare (like the RSPT), then the answer must be yes.

Once again, the government has got it very wrong. Following a report by the Grattan Institute, and inspired by the successes of New York, it appears that we are moving towards a situation where we will shortly be adopting performance based pay for teachers. You can read the report here and the related news coverage here. I haven’t read the full report, so I will limit my comments to this: the person who wrote the report is Dr Ben Jensen, who has worked for the OECD Education Directorate measuring school performance. Interestingly, though, Jensen has a PhD in Economics, not education.

What we are seeing here is the commercialisation of teaching. In keeping with the neoliberal priorities of the Rudd Government, we are moving towards an education sector where teachers are simply technicians – they use the tools provided by the government upon the children in their classrooms because – and only because – this is the best way of improving the country’s GNP. As we move into an era of accountability and performativity, it becomes vital that governments have ways of measuring the performance of teachers and therefore assigning capitalist worth to a person’s education. So we have nation wide testing to define an individuals worth and we take the concept of value-added to explain the worth of a teacher.

Quite frankly, if you’re nodding along to this as if it all makes perfect sense, it’s probably far too late for you. I know people like that. Even worse, there are teachers who think this is a good idea. Mostly young teachers, who’ve been convinced that they really are no better than technicians – in fact, worse than this, they are competitive technicians. Sure enough, schools will soon become a marketplace, with teachers, rather than working together in a spirit of collegiality. Teachers will spend hours coaching their classes to perform better in the exams – we will be literally teaching to the test – and all those other, vital things that schools provide will be disregarded and ignored. Even in the Victorian model, the principal will most likely assign bonuses to those teachers who work longer hours – or do more visible things – rather than those teachers that necessarily do the most good.

My real issue lies with the fact that teaching is not like being a technician, or a salesperson or really any other kind of job. It’s a job that navigates the nexus between motivation, intelligence and cultural and social upbringing. It’s a deeply personal job, linked to both the teachers starting point and beliefs and cultural values, and those of the student. It requires compassion, understanding and tolerance, not to mention a higher than average level of emotional intelligence. It is an impossible job.

It is not a simple equation where you get out certain values depending on what you put it. To say so is to insult the whole teaching profession.

While we’re at it, you and I both know that there are ordinary teachers out there. I’ve worked with some that I wouldn’t want teaching my children. I’m all for measuring teaching excellence – but we have not found a good way of doing it – yet. Until we do, everything else is simply garbage. Economic rationalism will not help us to create better citizens, although it might help us to create wealthier ones.

I think that this Labor government needs to return to its social democrat roots.